Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O5—cv—OO567-Gl\/IS Document 24-2 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
absolute immunity is consistent with the absolute immunity recognized in the federal
court opinions cited above in section III.B. However, absolute immunity is even broader
in Rule 10 as it creates an immunity from "civil suit," not just from a damages action.
Thus, it clearly extends to all forms of relief
D. Supplemental state law claims should be dismissed when the federal
law claims are dismissed.
It is well established that if the basis for federal jurisdiction in federal district
court fails, then absent extraordinary circumstances, any supplemental state law claims
should also be dismissed. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)
("Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial
in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well"); Borough of West
Mwlin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995) ("Under Gibbs jurisprudence, where
the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial,
the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of
judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative
justification for doing so."). In the instant action, as the federal claims should be
dismissed for the foregoing reasons, the state law claims should be dismissed as well.
28